The various replies to this inquiry help me a lot in
understanding why P.I.'s think of indirect cost recovery as
"profit."  It's a real connundrum;  we all know the costs are
real, but each time we "give" any part of the money back to the
P.I. it reinforces the notion that the money is not really
needed.

I don't have any answers here - just an observation.  At the
University of Southern California, all of the "income" goes to
the school, but then so do all of the indirect expenses.  It's up
to the Dean to balance the budget, and since money is fungible,
s/he may, if s/he wishes, tell the P.I.'s that they're getting
back some of the money they earned.  I'm not at all sure this
works to anyone's benefit in the long run.

Elaine Steward
University of Southern California/Information Sciences Institute